Sierra v. Spearman et al

Filing 80

ORDER ADOPTING 77 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/8/2022. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANCISCO SIERRA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-01691-DAD-EPG (PC)

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

J. CASTELLANOS,
(Doc. Nos. 76, 77)

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Francisco Sierra is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 8, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 76) be denied because it was

22

unrelated to the cruel-and-unusual punishment claim plaintiff has brought against defendant

23

Castellanos, which is the only claim that is proceeding in this action. (Doc. No. 77.) Those

24

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

25

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On March

26

10, 2022, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 78.) To date, defendant has not filed a response to

27

plaintiff’s objections.

28

/////
1

1

In his motion for injunctive relief plaintiff complained about “RVR write ups” from James

2

Brown, who is apparently a corrections officer at Mule Creek State Prison, not a party to this case

3

and who does not appear to be in active concert with defendant Castellanos. (Doc. No. 76 at 2.)

4

Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations generally repeat and expand upon his

5

allegations that he is being targeted for harassment at his place of incarceration, but his objections

6

offer no substantive challenge to the findings and recommendations. (See Doc. No. 78.) Because

7

plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 76) and his subsequent objections (Doc. No. 78) do not address in

8

any way the cruel-and-unusual punishment claim which plaintiff has brought against defendant

9

Castellanos in this action, the court will adopt the findings and recommendations.

10

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

11

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

12

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

13

by proper analysis.

14

Accordingly,

15

1.

16
17
18
19
20

The findings and recommendations issued on February 8, 2022 (Doc. No. 77) are
adopted in full; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 76) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 8, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2